An old joke suggests that philosophers in spite of all their differences fall broadly into two kinds: Those who own dogs, it is said, are confident that dogs have souls; those who don't deny this.
We have this thing called free will and we have the right to speculate on everything. But yet it becomes absurd if someone tries speculate without experiencing something which can be experienced seamlessly.
Plato said, "A dog has the soul of a philosopher."
Here's the argument from The Republic.
"The trait of which I am speaking, I replied, may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable in the animal.
What trait?
Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry: when acquaintance, he welcomes him, although the one how never done any harm, nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as curious?
The matter never struck me before; but I quite recognize the turth of your remark.
And surely this instinct of the dog is very charming; -- your dog is a true philosopher.
Why?
Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing. And must not an animal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikes by the test of knowledge and ignorance?
Most assuredly.
And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy?"
If dogs don't have souls; then soul simply doesn't interests me anymore. I can give it up for eternity.
No comments:
Post a Comment